Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NATLFED entities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NATLFED entities[edit]

A bulleted list of front groups is probably out of place in an encyclopedia. It also borders on original research. Whosasking 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list, once properly sourced, would be pretty useful to those interested in NATLFED. Almost voted for a merge here, but the size of the list, if legitimate, may warrant it's own page. Chet nc 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if sources are cited. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on citing sources: I happen to be the principal author, and I expect half of the entries won't survive strict referencing (and the references will occupy more space than the surviving entires). The list is based on a webpage based on a mid-1990s edition of the natlfed-published directory Invest Yourself which fails to meet the reputable source standard. Whosasking 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The proper place for this is on NATLFED's own website. Paddles 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The National Labor Federation article is all we need about this group on Wikipedia, the rest is excessive coverage of a marginally notable topic, i.e. cruft. KleenupKrew 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks useful per above. --JJay 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.